Issued  February  27,  1908. 

U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— Bulletin  103. 

A.  D.  MELVIN,  Chief  of  Bureau. 


1  m.  .PERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION 
1!  IN  ALABAMA. 


BY 


J.  F.  DUGGAR, 
Director  Alabama  Agricultural  Experiment  Station, 

AND 

W.  F.  WARD, 
Scientific  Assistant. 


WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT    PRINTING    OFFICE. 

1908. 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/experimentsinbeeOOduggiala 


BuL.  103,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  I. 


Fig.  1.— Native  Alabama  Cow  with  Calf  by  Purebred  Hereford  Bull. 


Fig.  2.— Native  Alabama  Cow  with  Calf  by  Purebred  Hereford  Bull. 


Fig.  3.— Relative  Size  of  3-Year-Old  Scrub  Steer  and  Purebred  Angus  Cow 

OF  Same  Age. 


Sis*:"*: 


^:nt  Et  !S8  mm  Sl&iss  es^erssie&L 


Issued  Febmar>'  27,  1908. 

U.  S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY.— Bulletin  103. 

A.  D.  MELVIN,  Chief  oh  Bureau. 


EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION 
IN  ALABAMA. 


BY 


J.  F.  DUGGAR, 

Director  Alabama  Agricultural  Experiment  Station, 
AND 

W.  F.  WARD, 
Scientific  Assistant. 


WASHINGTON : 

GOVHRNMHNT    I'RINTING    OFKICI-. 
1908. 


THE  BUREAU  OF  ANIMAL  INDUSTRY. 

Chief:  A.   I).   Mki.vin. 

Assistant  Chief:  A.  M.  FAKRiNCiioN. 

Chief  Clerk:  E.  li.  Jonks. 

Jiioehemie  Division:  M.  Dorset,  chief;  James  A.  Emery,  assistant  chief. 

Dairy  Division:  Eu,  H.  Webster,  chief;  C.  B.  Lane,  assistant  cliief. 

htsjH'etion  Division:  Rice  T.  Steddom,  chief;  Morris  Wooden,  11.  A.  Ramsay, 
and  Alhert  E.  Behnke,  associate  chiefs. 

Pathological  Division:  John  R.  Mohleb,  chief;  Henry  J.  Washburn,  assist- 
ant chief. 

Quarantine  Division:  Richard  W.  Hickman,  chief. 

Zoolo(/ieal  Division:  B.  H.  Ransom,  chief. 

E.ri)eriment  Station:  E.  C.  Schroeder,  superintendent ;  W.  E.  Cotton, 
assistant. 

Animal  Hushandman:  George  M.  Rommel. 

Editor:  James  M.   Pickens. 

Librarian:  Beatrice  Obebly'  Rogers. 

f 

ANIMAL  HUSBANDRY  OFFICE. 

Animal  Hushandman:  George  M.  Rommel. 

Assistant  Animal  Husbandman:  G.  Arthur  Bell. 

Animal  breeding  investigations:  Auiintil  Husbandman  in  charge;  E.  H.  Riley, 
assistant. 

Animal  nutrition  investigations:  H.  1*.  Annsby,  expei't  in  charge;  J.  A.  Fries, 
W.  W.   Bra  man,  and   F.  W.  Christensen,  assistants. 

Beef  inoduetion  investigations:  Auiuml  Husbandman  in  charge;  Dan  T.  Gray, 
expert  in  charge  of  Alabama  work:  Frank  G.  King,  assistant  in  Missouri  work. 

Hog  investigations:  Assistant  Animal  Husbandman  in  charge;  L.  R.  Davies, 
assistant. 

Horse  breeding  investigations:  Animal  Husbandman  in  charge;  W.  Ij.  (^ar- 
lyle,  expert  in  charge  of  Colorado  work ;  W.  F.  Hammond,  expert  superintend- 
t>nt  of  Morgtin  Horse  Farm,  Vermont. 

Milking  Shorthorn  investigations:  Animal  Husbandman  in  charge;  D.  A. 
(iaumnitz,  expert  assistant  in  Minnesota  work. 

Poultry  investigations:  Rob  R.  Slocuni  in  charge;  Raymond  Pearl,  expert  in 
lM)ultry  breeding,  Orono,  Me. 

Sheep  and  goat  investigations:  Edward  L.  Shaw  in  charge;  T.  F.  McConnell 
in  charge  of  Wyoming  sheep  breeding  work. 

Supervision  of  pedigree  record  associations:  Animal  Husbandman  in  charge; 
Roy  A.  Cave,  assistant. 


LETTER  OF  TRANSMITTAL. 


U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 

Bureau  of  Animal  Industry, 
Washington^  D.  (7.,  Decemher  23.  1907. 
Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  herewith  for  publication  as  a 
bulletin  of  this  Bureau  a  manuscript  entitled  '*  Experiments  in  Beef 
Production  in  Alabama,"  by  Director  J.  F.  Duggar.  of  the  Alabama 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  and  W.  F.  Ward,  scientific  assist- 
ant. The  work  was  done  before  Director  Duggar  turned  over  this 
work  to  Prof.  Dan  T.  Gray,  who  is  now  in  charge. 

The  bulletin  is  the  result  of  three  years'  cooperation  with  the  Ala- 
bama Experiment  Station  in  steer  feeding,  and  covers  in  a  compre- 
hensive manner  tests  of  different  feeding  methods  in  use  by  Alabama 
stockmen  or  considered  worthy  of  trial  in  that  section.  This  will  be 
the  first  bulletin  published  by  the  Bureau  giving  results  obtained 
as  a  direct  result  of  the  appropriation  for  experiments  in  animal 
breeding  and  feeding  in  cooperation  with  State  agricultural  experi- 
ment stations. 

Respectfully.  A.  D.  Mki.vin. 

CJiicf  of  Jill  lilt  II. 
Hon.  James  Wilson. 

Serrcttinj  of  Af/rirnffn/c. 


PREFACE. 


The  investigations  reported  by  Director  Duggar  and  Mr.  Ward  in 
this  bulletin,  although  complete  in  themselves,  were  planned  to  be 
preliminary  to  a  sj^stematic  study  of  the  economy  of  beef  production 
under  southern  conditions,  especially  in  sections  east  of  the  Missis- 
sippi River.  As  a  basis  for  work  it  was  important  to  know  thor- 
oughly the  value  of  southern  feeds  in  steer  feeding. 

The  greatest  agricultural  necessity  of  the  South  to-day  is  live  stock. 
There  are  several  reasons  for  this,  some  of  which  are  to  supply  local 
demands,  to  utilize  the  southern  feedstuffs  to  best  advantage,  and  to 
restore  fertility  to  worn-out  fields.  To  meet  these  demands,  a  study 
must  be  made  of  every  phase  of  animal  husbandry — the  value  of 
southern  feeds,  the  value  of  jjurebred  sires  to  improve  the  native 
stock,  economy  of  production,  the  relation  of  southern  markets  to 
the  development  of  the  stock-raising  industry,  and  the  influence  of 
soil  and  climatic  conditions. 

The  results  set  forth  in  this  bulletin  add  much  valuable  informa- 
tion to  that  in  bulletins  already  published  by  southern  experiment 
stations,  especially  as  showing  the  relative  values  of  various  feeds  and 
rations.  The  value  of  purebred  sires  has  been  generally  acknowl- 
edged, but  it  is  not  yet  put  into  practice  to  any  great  extent.  Em- 
phasis must  be  placed  not  only  on  the  inferiority  of  native  stock,  but 
on  the  rapid  improvement  that  can  be  made  by  using  purebred  sires. 
Two  instances  may  be  seen  in  Plate  I  of  this  bulletin. 

As  to  economy  of  production,  the  results  of  these  investigations 
show  that  much  is  to  be  learned,  and  as  to  market  conditions  there 
is  a  great  deal  more  to  be  learned.  Soil  and  clinuitic  conditions 
have  received  very  little  attention  and  will  repay  close  study. 

With  the  progress  of  the  campaign  for  the  extermination  of  the 
cattle  tick,  these  prol)lems  l)ecome  still  more  pressing. 

(iKOR(JE    M.    KoMMKI,. 

Aninidl   II uxl»(iii(inuin,   liiircdii    of   Anhnttl   I luJ ustry. 


CONTENTS. 


Page. 

Introductory 9 

Objects  of  the  experiments 10 

Details  of  the  experiments 11 

The  steers  used 11 

Shelter,  feed  lots,  and  water  sui)ply 11 

Weighing,  etc 12 

Method  of  feetliug 12 

Character  and  cost  of  feetls  usetl 12 

The  rations 14 

Hogs  following  the  steers 14 

Comparison  of  daily  gains 14 

Feed   rwiuirements Iti 

Financial   statement 1!> 

Daily  rations  and  dry  matter  requirtnl  for  1(X)  jHtunds  (»f  gain 24 

The  nutritive  ratio 2r» 

Slaughter    tests 2(i 

Summary  27 

7 
2;J027— lUlU.  103— OS^ 2 


LLUSTRATIONS. 


Page. 
Plate  I.  The  value  of  good  blood.     Figs.  1  and  2. — Native  Alabama  cows 

with  calves  by  purebred  Hereford  bull.     Fig.  3. — Relative  size 

of  3-year-old  scrub  steer  and   purebred  Angus  cow   of  same 

age Frontispiece. 

II.  Fig.  1. — Steers  in  feed  lots,  first  experiment.     Fig.  2. — General 

view  of  steers  in  second  experiment 12 

III.  Scrub  steers,  first  exi^eriment 12 

IV,  Fig.  1. — Scrub    steer,    first    experiment.     Fig.    2. — Scrub    steer, 

second    exiieriment 12 

V.  Fig.    1. — Grade    Red    Poll,    first    experiment.     Fig.    2. — Grade 

Shorthorn,    first   experiment 12 

VI.  Fig.  1. — (Jrade  Red  Poll,  first  experiment.     Fig.  2. — Grade  Here- 
ford,  first  experiment 1(5 

VII.  (irade  Aberdeen-Angus  steers,  first  experiment 10 

VIII.  Fig.    1.— Grade    Shorthorn,    first    experiment.     Fig.    2. — Grade 

Aberdeen-Angus,  first  experiment 16 

IX.  Fig.  1. — Pen  of  scrubs,  first  exjieriment.     Fig.  2. — Pen  of  grades, 

first  experiment 10 

X.  Fig.    1. — Pen    of   scrubs,    second   experiment.     Fig.    2. — Pen    of 

grades,  first  experiment 20 

XI.  Fig.  ]. — Pen  of  grades,  first  experiment.     Fig.  2.^Pen  of  gi-ades, 

second  exiieriment 20 

8 


EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  ALABAMA. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

Within  the  past  decade  there  has  been  a  decided  increase  in  the 
interest  manifested  in  the  growing  of  beef  cattle  in  the  Gulf  States 
east  of  the  Mississippi  River.  This  has  been  largely  due  to  a  decrease 
in  the  amount  of  labor  available  on  farms  and  to  the  belief  that  the 
losses  due  to  the  presence  in  this  region  of  the  cattle  tick  are  in  a  fair 
way  of  being  eliminated,  either  by  the  artificial  immunization  of 
valuable  breeding  animals  brought  from  higher  latitudes  or  by  the 
eradication  of  the  tick.  The  outlook  regarding  the  last-named  solu- 
tion of  the  difficulty  is  very  encouraging,  in  view  of  the  success  attend- 
ing the  work  now  being  done  by  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  with 
the  cooperation  of  the  State  authorities  and  the  cattle  owners. 

Numbers  of  bulls  of  the  l>eef  breeds  have  been  brought  into  the 
South  during  the  last  decade;  consequently  the  number  of  grade 
beef  cattle  has  rapidly  increased.  Assuming  that  a  grade  animal  of 
the  beef  breeds  can  he  raised  at  a  profit  when  making  its  living  on 
pasturage  on  low-priced  lands,  there  still  remains  the  open  question, 
so  far  as  this  region  is  concerned,  whether  there  is  most  profit  in  mar- 
keting this  animal  directly  from  the  pasture  or  in  feeding  it  for  one 
winter  just  l)efore  shipping  so  as  to  sell  it  at  a  considerably  higher 
price  per  pound.  Of  course  a  variable  answer  to  this  question  will 
be  had,  dependent  (1)  upon  the  difference  in  price  paid  for  southern 
cattle  from  the  pasture  and  from  the  feed  lot;  (2)  upon  tlie  prices, 
always  fluctuating,  of  southern  feedstuffs;  (3)  upon  the  quality  of 
the  aninuils  fed,  and  (4)  upon  a  number  of  other  conditions. 

It  was  to  throw  light  upon  some  of  these  questions  that  the  follow- 
ing experiments  were  undertaken  jointly  l)v  the  Alabama  Agricul- 
tural Experiment  Station  and  the  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  of 
the  Knited  States  Department  of  Agriculture. 

Most  of  the  feeding  of  cattle  in  Alabama  for  fattening  purposes  is 
done  in  the  vicinity  of  the  cotton-seed  oil  mills,  and  almost  exclu- 
sively the  ration  consists  of  cotton-seed  meal  and  cotton-seed  hulls. 
The  iiigh  prices  of  cotton-seed  feed  products  prevailing  during  the 
past  few  years  have  tended  to  prevent  the  extension  of  winter  feeding 
operation.s.     Those  who  have  been  so  situated  that  they  could  obtain 

9 


10       EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  ALABAMA. 

(otton-sood  meal  and  cotton-seed  hulls  at  a  low  price  have  been  able 
to  continue  feeding.  Usually  cotton-seed  meal  is  cheaper  in  the 
immediate  vicinity  of  the  cotton-oil  mills,  and  when  purchased  under 
a  contract  made  before  the  beginning  of  the  crushing  season.  A 
favorite  method  of  securing  low  prices  for  cotton-seed  meal  and  for 
cotton-seed  hulls  by  those  who  have  the  disposal  of  large  amounts  of 
cotton  seed  consists  in  the  exchange  by  the  farmer  of  cotton  seed  for 
tlie  manufactured  feed  products  of  the  oil  mills. 

The  experimental  work  here  described  was  at  a  disadvantage  in 
all  these  respects,  so  that  the  feedstuffs  cost  more  than  would  be 
the  case  with  more  extensive  feeders  who  are  more  favorably  circum- 
stanced. Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  high  prices  of  feed  the  experiments 
were  entered  upon  with  the  expectation  that  they  would  afford  some 
data  as  to  the  relative  values  of  the  principal  southern  feedstuffs, 
even  though  they  should  not  afford  profitable  results  while  the  prices 
of  feed  should  continue  high. 

The  principal  inducement  for  farmers  to  feed  cattle  on  purchased 
feeds,  chiefly  cotton-seed  meal  and  cotton-seed  hulls,  is  the  great  value 
of  the  manure  produced  from  this  rich  ration.  For  the  farmer  who 
liabitually  purchases  cotton-seed  meal  for  use  as  a  fertilizer  it  is 
sound  policy  first  to  pass  this  feed  through  cattle,  after  which  its  fer- 
tilizing value,  if  no  losses  occur,  should  be  more  than  four-fifths  of 
its  original  fertilizing  value.  Unfortimately  fermentation,  leaching, 
and  mechanical  losses  of  the  manure  and  the  cost  of  handling  this 
bulky  article  must  be  taken  into  account  as  deductions  from  the  theo- 
retical value  of  the  manure.  Even  after  this  is  done  such  manure  is 
a  most  profitable  fertilizer,  and  these  losses  are  merely  noted  here 
as  a  means  of  cautioning  farmers  to  reduce  them  to  the  lowest  possi- 
ble limit  when  feeding  is  done  chiefly  as  a  means  of  'obtaining  a 
supply  of  manure.  Doubtless  if,  in  the  following  experiments,  we 
had  been  able  to  determine  the  exact  amount  and  value  of  the  manure 
produced  there  would  have  been  a  profit  from  feeding  operations 
which,  as  here  figured,  independent  of  the  manure,  were  often 
unjirofitable. 

OBJECTS  OF  THE  EXPERIMENTS. 

In  planning  these  experiments  two  main  objects  were  in  view. 
These  Avere  to  throw  additional  light  on  the  questions  (1)  wdiether 
farm-grown  forage  can  be  substituted  profitably  for  cotton-seed  hulls, 
the  usual  roughage,  and  {'2)  to  determine  the  relative  values  of  the 
most  common  southern  concentrated  feedstuffs — cotton  seed,  cotton- 
seed meal,  and  corn.  The  experiments  were  conducted  with  a  total 
of  150  steers;  50  steers  were  fed  for  each  of  three  w^inters  under  as 
nearly  the  same  conditions  as  possible.  The  steers  were  2-year-old 
grades  of  the  beef  and  dual-purpose  breeds,  except  that  one  pen  each 


OBJECTS   AND   DETAILS   OF   EXPERIMENTS.  11 

year  consisted  of  typical  scrubs.  The  animals  were  divided  into  10 
lots  of  5  steers  each,  in  such  a  way  that  the  results  obtained  would 
permit  of  the  following  comparisons : 

1.  Sorghum  hay  or  fodder  versus  cotton-seed  hulls. 

2.  Shredded  corn  stover  versus  cotton-seed  hulls. 

8.  Sorghum  hay  or  fodder  versus  shredded  corn  stover. 

4,  Corn-and-cob  meal  versus  cotton  seed  as  the  principal  concen- 
trate. 

5,  Cotton-seed  meal  versus  corn  as  an  appetizer  in  a  cotton-seed 
ration. 

0.  The  effects  of  substituting  corn-and-cob  meal  for  a  part  of  the 
cotton-seed  meal. 

7.  The  value,  if  any,  of  shelter  in  fattening  southern  steers. 

8.  A  comparison  of  scrubs  with  grades  of  tlie  beef  breeds  or  dual- 
purpose  breeds. 

DETAILS   OF   THE   EXPERIMENTS. 

THK    STKKRS   ISKI). 

The  grade  steers  used  were  in  most  cases  2-year-old  half  bloods. 
They  were  out  of  native  cows  from  bulls  of  the  Angus,  Shorthorn, 
Red  Polled,  Hereford,, and  Devon  breeds,  and  were  obtained  in  Wil- 
cox and  Sumter  counties  in  the  central  prairie  region  of  Alabama. 
They  were  not  as  uniform  as  desirable,  because  of  the  fact  that  they 
were  obtained  from  different  men,  as  no  one  man  had  very  many  of 
the  size  and  quality  desired. 

The  steers  used  in  the  first  experiment  (1904-5)  were  smaller,  thin- 
ner, and  poorer  in  quality  than  those  in  the  two  following  years. 
The  steers  were  in  quality  from  *'"  common  *"  to  "  good,"  the  majority 
being  classed  as  '*  medium  feeders." 

The  scrubs  used  were  about  the  average  quality  of  scrubs  and  were 
typical  specimens  of  their  kind.  They  were  3  and  4  year  olds. 
About  half  of  them  showed  traces  of  Jersey  blood,  as  do  a  consider- 
able proportion  of  the  scrub  cattle  of  Alabama.  They  were  thinner 
in  flesh  than  the  grades  in  the  first  experiment,  and  this  undoubtedly 
accounts  for  their  larger  gains  the  first  year. 

The  grade  steers  were  valued  at  8  cents  a  pound  when  put  on  feed. 
The  scrub  steers  cost  2i  cents  a  pound. 

SIIKLTER,  FKED  LOTS,  AND  WATF.H  SFPFLV. 

The  feed  lots  were  Ifi  by  00  feet,  the  ground  sloj^ing  away  from  the 
shed.  These  lots  had  a  gocnl  slope,  but  still  became  very  muddy  in 
Avet  weather.  The  lot  without  shelter  was  at  times  several  inches 
deep  in  mud,  so  that  the  steers  had  no  dry  place  to  lie  down.  Xone 
of  the  lots  were  bedded,  though  the  sheds  were.     The  feed  troughs 


12  EXPERIMENTS    IN    BEEF    PRODUCTION    IN    ALABAMA. 

were  uiulor  the  sheds.  The  water  troughs  were  near  the  feed  troughs 
iuid  iiiuler  the  shed,  the  water  being  supplied  from  a  well.  Tlie 
trouglis  liad  float  valves,  so  that  a  fresh  supply  of  water  was  kept  in 
them  at  all  times. 

WEI(JIIIN(;,  ETC. 

The  steers  were  numbered  l)y  means  of  tags  in  the  ears.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  preliminary  period  the  steers  were  weighed  and 
divided  as  equally  as  possible  with  a  view  to  getting  the  pens  iniiform 
ill  quality  and  weight.  At  the  beginning  and  close  of  the  feeding 
experiment  proper  the  steers  were  weighed  three  days  in  succession 
to  get  an  average  weight.  The  weighing  was  begun  at  10.30  a.  m., 
the  steers  having  had  access  to  both  feed  and  water.  Each  steer  was 
weighed  at  the  end  of  every  week. 

METHOD  OF  FEEDING. 

The  feed  was  weighed  out  twice  daily  and  fed  at  7  a.  m.  and  5.30 
]).  m.  '  The  roughage  and  concentrate  were  fed  at  the  same  time. 
The  steers  were  fed  all  the  roughage  they  would  eat  up  clean.  They 
were  salted  once  a  week,  two  days  after  weighing.  They  were 
started  on  a  small  grain  ration,  and  this  was  gradually  increased 
initil  they  were  eating  a  full  grain  ration.  A  close  watch  was  kept 
on  them  to  see  that  there  Avas  no  scouring,  as  this  is  common  in  feed- 
ing cotton  seed  or  cotton-seed  meal  in  large  quantities.  There  was 
little  scouring,  it  being  confined  chiefly  to  the  pens  getting  cotton 
seed.  There  was  a  greater  tendency  to  scour  as  warm  weather  came 
on,  so  at  times  the  grain  ration  had  to  be  cut  dowm  slightly.  The  pens 
getting  cotton-seed  hulls  had  the  concentrate  mixed  with  the  hulls 
in  the  feed  troughs.  Those  getting  surghum  had  the  grain  mixed 
with  the  cut  sorglunn  in  the  same  way  as  the  pens  getting  cotton- 
seed hidls.  The  cowpea  hay  and  the  corn  stover  were  fed  in  racks 
just  over  the  feed  troughs,  so  that  any  waste  would  drop  into  the 
t  roughs. 

Since  the  laxative  effects  of  cotton  seed  restricted  the  amounts  of 
concentrate  fed  to  pens  8  and  9,  it  was  necessary  to  reduce  the  corn 
ration  of  pen  10  far  below  the  amount  of  corn  usually  fed,  so  that  the 
amount  of  concentrates  fed  to  these  three  pens  would  be  the  same. 
The  feeding  period  occupied  84  days  each  year. 

c;haracter  and  cost  of  feeds  used. 

The  cotton-seed  meal  fed  was  of  average  quality,  as  were  the  cotton 
seed,  corn,  and  cotton-seed  hulls.  The  husked  corn  was  coarsely 
ground,  and  70  ])ounds  was  found  to  be  equivalent  to  1  bushel  of 
shelled  corn.    The  corn  stover  was  inferior,  being  coarse  and  very  dry. 


BUL.  103,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  II. 


Fig.  1.— Steers  in  Feed  Lots— First  Experiment. 


WKj^f^^ 

•*^!^^^^^^?^ 

Fio.  2. -General  View  of  Steers  in  Second  Experimlnt 


BuL.   103.  Bureau  of  Ammal  Industry.  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  111. 


Fig.  1  —Scrub  Steer— First  Experiment. 


Fig.  2.— Another  Scrub  Steer-First  Experiment. 


BuL.  103.  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry.  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  IV. 


Fig.  1.— Scrub  Steer— First  Experiment. 


Fig.  2.  Scrub  Steer  Second  Experiment. 


BuL.  103,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  V. 


Fig.  1.— Grade  Red  Poll— First  Experiment. 


Fig.  2.  -Grade  Shorthorn-First  Experiment. 


CHARACTER   AND    COST    OF    FEEDS.  13 

There  was  left  in  the  troughs  uneaten  29  per  cent  of  the  stover  that 
was  fed.  This  refuse  consisted  chiefly  of  the  larger  sections  of  the 
corn  stalk,  and,  of  course,  its  weight  was  charged  to  the  steers.  This 
waste  material  was  removed  from  the  troughs  when  necessary  and 
used  as  bedding. 

The  sorghum  forage  fed  varied  considerably  in  different  years,  but 
was  on  the  whole  very  inferior,  being  chiefly  coarse  and  sometimes 
slightly  moldy.  Ten  per  cent  of  it  was  left  in  the  troughs.  The 
cowpea  hay  was  below  average  quality,  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  it 
contained  a  small  amount  of  crab  grass.  The  sorghum  was  cut  into 
lengths  of  about  three-fourths  of  an  inch,  but  the  cowpea  hay  was 
fed  whole. 

During  the  course  of  each  experiment  the  local  prices  of  corn  and 
cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls  were  abnormally  high.  The  average 
market  prices  for  the  three  years  were  approximately  as  follows : 

Per  ton. 

Cotton-seed  uieal $24.  00 

Cotton    seed 14.00 

Com  (70  cents  a  bushel) 25.00 

Corn-and-cob  meal  (corn  70  cents  a  bushel) 20.00 

Cotton-seed  hulls 7.  00 

Corn  stover  (homegrown;  unbaled  ;  estimated) 4.00 

Sorghum  fodder  (home  grown;  unbaled;  estimated )-^^ 6.67 

Cowpea  hay    (home  grown;   unbaled:  estimated) 10.00 

Since  the  prices  prevailing  while  these  experiments  were  in  progress 
were  unusually  high,  the  figures  given  above  may  be  regarded  as 
representing  nearly  the  upper  limit  of  prices  for  purchased  feeds 
and  the  market  value  of  the  farm-grown  roughage  unbaled  on  the 
farm.  By  contracting  in  the  summer  for  the  necessary  amounts,  the 
purchasable  feed  can  sometimes  be  obtained  at  about  the  following 
prices : 

Per  ton. 

Cotton-setHl  meal . $20.00 

Cotton  seed 12.00 

Corn-and-cob  meal   (corn  r»0  cents  per  bushel) 14.67 

Cotton-seed    hulls 4.00 

(3orn  stover  (homegrown) 4.00 

Sorghum  fcnlder  (homegrown) 6.67 

Cowpea  hay  ( home  grown ) 10.  (K) 

Unless  otherwise  stated,  all  financial  calcuhitions  in  this  bulletin 
are  based  on  the  last-named  prices.  The  prices  of  the  roughage 
grown  on  the  farm  would  l)e  much  h)wer  anil  the  profits  much 
greater  than  calculated  in  this  bulletin  if  we  could  assume  as  the 
price  of  the  stover  and  hay  the  actual  cost  of  growing  it.  Unfor- 
tunately, there  are  no  adequate  data  on  record  to  establish  the  cost 
of  gi-owing  a  ton  of  each  of  these  feeds. 


14  EXPERIMENTS    IN    BEEF    PRODUCTION    IN    ALABAMA. 

THE  RATIONS, 

The  rations  fed  to  the  various  pens  are  shown  in  Table  1. 
Table  1. — The  ration  fed  to  each  pen. 


Pens  anil  steprs. 


Pen  1  (sprubs).. 
Pen  2  (grades')— 
Pen  .3  (grades).. 


Pen  4  (grades) 

Pen  f)  (grades) 

Pen  6  (grades:  no  shelter). 
Pen  7  (grades) 


Pen  8  (gratfes).. 
Pen  9  (grades).. 
Pen  10  ( grades) - 


Concentrate. 


Cotton-seed  meal 

do. „ 

H  cotton-seed  meal,  ^  corn-and-eob 

meal. 

Cotton-seed  meal 

do 

do 

S  cotton-seed  meal,  i  corn-and-cob 

meal. 
§  cotton  seed,  \  cotton-seed  meal.. 

§  cotton  seed,  i  corn-and-cob  meal 

g  corn-and-cob  meal,  i  cotton-seed 

meal. 


Roughage. 


Cotton-seed  hulls. 
Do. 
I>o. 

Shredded  corn  stover. 
Cut  sorghum . 
Cotton-seed  hulls. 
Shreddetl  corn  stover. 

\  cowpea  hay,  i  sorghum. 
Do. 
Do. 


HOOS    FOLLOWING    THE    STEERS. 

Very  little  corn  being  fed,  and  that  being  ground,  hogs  did  not 
follow  the  steers  except  in  the  first  winter.  They  made  such  slight 
gains  that  the  inconvenience  of  having  them  in  the  pens  was  regarded 
as  counterbalancing  the  gains  made.  Ten  pigs,  averaging  81  pounds 
live  weight  when  put  in  the  pens,  followed  the  50  steers  for  seventy- 
one  days.  They  had  access  to  all  pens  and  received  about  2  pounds  of 
shelled  corn  per  day.  The  average  gains  were  0.45  pound  per  day  per 
pig,  requiring  2.5  pounds  of  shelled  corn  to  make  1  pound  of  gain.  It 
appears  that  they  made  about  half  their  living  on  the  droppings.  No 
pig  showed  any  signs  of  cotton-seed  meal  poisoning,  in  spite  of  the 
fact  that  they  often  got  into  the  steers"  feed  troughs.  The  pigs  cost 
4|  cents  a  pound  and  sold  in  New  Orleans  at  5^  cents  a  pound,  live 
weight,  March  28,  1905.  The  net  profit  per  pig,  with  corn  at  50  cents 
a  bushel,  was  $1.20. 

COMf>AIlISON  or  DAILY  GAINS. 

Sorghum  versus  cotton-seed  hulls  {pens  2  and  6). — Comparing  the 
daily  gains,  as  shown  in  Table  2,  of  the  pen  fed  on  cut  sorghum  (pen 
5)  with  those  made  by  the  check  lot  on  cotton-seed  hulls  (pen  2), 
we  find  that  cotton-seed  hulls  afforded  larger  daily  gains  in  the  sec- 
ond and  third  years  and  practically  identical  gains  in  the  first 
winter.  The  lower  average  daily  gain  with  sorghum  (1,39  pounds,  as 
compared  with  1.55  pounds  from  feeding  hulls)  is  believed  to  be 
partly  due  to  the  smaller  amount  of  sorghum  than  of  hulls  consumed. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  the  selling  price  per  hundredweight 
of  the  steers  fed  on  .sorghum  was,  each  year,  a  little  below  the  price  of 
those  fed  on  hulls. 


COMPARISON    OF    DAILY    GAINS.  15 

Shredded  corn  stover  versus  cotton-seed  hulls  {pens  2  and  If). — 
Comparing  shredded  corn  stover  (pen  4)  with  the  check  lot  fed  on 
cotton-seed  hulls  (pen  2),  we  find  in  all  three  experiments  that  the 
daily  gains  were  more  rapid  where  the  hulls  were  fed.  The  average 
daily  gain  for  the  three  years  with  stover  was  only  1.19  pounds,  as 
compared  with  1.55  pounds  when  cotton-seed  hulls  were  fed.  This 
may  have  been  due  to  the  fact  that  the  steers  could  not  be  induced  to 
eat  as  much  stover  as  hulls. 

Cotton  seed  versus  corn-and-coh  meal  as  the  principal  concentrate 
{pens  8  and  10). — The  average  daily  gain  for  the  three  years  is  very 
slightly  in  favor  of  pen  10,  fed  chiefly  on  corn-and-cob  meal.  How- 
ever, as  this  difference  in  rapidity  of  gain  represents  less  than  2  per 
cent,  and  since  cotton  seed  was  ahead  in  one  of  the  three  experiments, 
we  are  justified  in  regarding  these  experiments  as  indicating  that  a 
pound  of  cotton  seed  was  practically  equal  to  a  pound  of  corn-and-cob 
meal. 

C otton-seed  meal  versus  corii-and-coh  meal  as  an  appetizer  when 
fed  in  connection  ivith  cotton  seed  {pens  <S  and  9). — In  the  preceding 
paragraph,  the  corn  and  cotton  seed  constituted  two-thirds  of  the 
weight  of  the  concentrate.  We  now  make  a  comparison  between 
rations  in  which  cotton-seed  meal  and  corn-and-cob  meal  made  up 
only  one-third  of  the  ration. 

The  average  results  for  three  years  are  in  favor  of  cotton-seed 
meal  as  a  supplementary  feed.  Pen  8,  which  received  cotton-seed 
meal  mixed  with  cotton  seed,  gave  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.G8 
pounds,  as  compared  with  1.52  pounds  for  pen  9,  which  received  corn- 
and-cob  meal  mixed  with  cotton  seed.  However,  the  results  of  the 
three  different  experiments  are  not  in  accord. 

Effect  of  substituting  corn-and-coh  meed  for  one-third  of  the  cotton- 
seed meal  when  fed  with  {a)  hulls  or  {h)  corn  stover  {pens  2  and  3, 
and  4  ttnd  7). — (a)  Pen  2  was  fed,  as  is  common  in  the  South,  on 
a  ration  of  cotton-seed  meal  and  cotton-seed  hulls.  Pen  *i  was  simi- 
larly fed,  except  that  corn-and-cob  meal  was  substituted,  pound  for 
pound,  for  one-third  of  the  cotton-seed  meal,  thus  widening  the 
nutritivi'  ratio.  The  average  results  for  three  years  show  a  slightly 
more  rapid  gain  from  the  use  of  corn-and-cob  meal.  In  two  of  tlie 
cxix'rinients  corn-and-cob  meal  afforded  the  more  rapid  gain,  while 
in  the  third  exi)eriment  the  rates  of  gain  were  identical  for  the  two 
rations. 

(h)  Likewise'  corn-and-cob  meal  was  substituted,  pound  for  j)ound, 
for  one-third  of  the  cotton-seed  meal  where  the  rougiiagewas  shredded 
corn  stover  (j)ens  4  and  7).  The  result  in  this  case  was  also  favorable 
to  the  use  of  corn-and-cob  meal,  the  average  daily  gain  being  slightly 
larger  for  pen  7.  receiving  a  partial  ration  of  corn-and-col)  meal,  than 
for  pen  4,  receiving  only  cotton-si'ed  meal  as  a  concentrate. 


16 


EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  ALABAMA. 


Table  2. — Average   daily   gains,  and   consumption. 


Ration. 

Aver- 
age 
dally 
gain, 
1904-5 

(84 
days) . 

Aver- 
age 
daily 
gain, 
1905-0 

(84 
days) . 

Aver- 
age 
dally 
gain, 
1906-7 

(84 
days). 

Aver- 
age 
dally 
gain, 
whole 
period 

(252 
days). 

Average 

Pen  No. 

sumed  per  steer 

per  day,  whole 

period. 

Con- 
cen- 
trate. 

Rough- 
age. 

1  (scnibs.) 
2 

3 

4... 

5 

6 

7 

9- 

Cotton-seed  meal.. 
do 

1  i{  cotton-.seed  meal. 
<i    corn  -  and  -  cob 
I    meal. 
Cotton-seed  meal.. 

Illlldo""""""!.' 

[if  eotton-seed  meal. 
<i    corn  -  and  -cob 
1    meal. 

|i|  cotton  seed 

U  cotton-seed  meal. 

[if  cotton  seed 

<i    corn  -  and  -  cob 
1    meal. 

g    corn  -  and  -  cob 
meal. 

3  eotton-seed  meaL 

Cotton-seed  hulls.. 
do 

L.-do 

Shredded    corn 
stover. 

Cut  sorghum 

Cotton-seed  hulls.. 

1  Shredded    corn 
1    stover. 

J  cowpea  hay 

i  cut  sorghum 

J  cowpea  hay 

J  cut  sorghum 

i  cowpea  hay 

J  cut  sorghum 

Lbs. 
2.20 
1.88 

1.93 

1.84 

1.89 
1.62 

\    1.85 
1     2.10 

2.10 

Lbs. 

1.55 
1.51 

1.87 

1.15 

1.12 
1.29 

1.29 
2.00 
1.48 

1.70 

Lbs. 
1.30 
1.27 

1.27 

.57 

1.17 
1.50 

.90 
1.19 

.m 

1.34 

Lbs. 
1.68 
1.55 

1.60 

1.19 

1.39 
1.47 

1..S2 
1.68 
1.52 

1.71 

Lbs. 
5.1 
5.6 

6.5 

5.5 

5.5 
5.5 

6.5 
7.1 

7.2 

7.2 

Lbs. 
18.5 
19.5 

19.4 

17.4 

15.9 
21.3 

16.6 
15.6 
14.9 

10 . 

16.1 

Effects  of  shelter. — The  animals  in  pen  2  were  fed  under  an  open 
shed,  and  pen  6  had  no  shelter.  The  average  daily  gain  for  the  three 
years  was  1.55  pounds  for  the  pen  under  shelter  and  1.47  pounds  for 
the  lot  without  shelter.  In  the  two  wet  winters  (1904-5  and  1905-6) 
the  largest  daily  gains  were  made  by  the  lot  under  shelter ;  but  in  the 
mild  and  rather  dry  winter  of  1906-7  the  lot  without  shelter  made 
more  rapid  gains. 

Scrubs  versus  grades. — Pen  1  consisted  of  scrubs — that  is,  of  native 
cattle  without  admixture  of  any ^  improved  beef  blood.  Pen  2  con- 
tained grades  of  the  beef  and  dual-purpose  breeds  as  described  on 
page  11.  The  scrubs  made  an  average  gain  for  three  years  of  1.68 
pounds  and  the  grades  an  average  daily  gain  of  1.55  pounds.  In  the 
first  experiment  the  scrubs  were  notably  thinner  than  the  grades  at 
the  beginning  of  the  feeding  period,  and  hence  the  scrubs  made  more 
rapid  gains.  In  the  other  two  experiments  the  scrubs  and  the  grades 
made  almost  identical  daily  gains. 


FEED   BEQUIREMENTS. 

Sorghum  versus  cotton-seed  hulls  {pens  2  and  5). — The  average  of 
three  years'  results  shows  that  1  pound  of  gain  was  made  with  the  con- 
sumption of  only  3.66  pounds  of  concentrated  feed  in  the  case  of 
the  lot  getting  cotton-seed  hulls,  as  compared  with  4.23  pounds  for 
the  lot  fed  on  sorghum.  Every  year  there  was  a  smaller  consumption 
of  roughage  per  pound  of  gain  in  the  sorghum  lot  than  in  the  lot  fed 
on  hulls,  the  figures  being,  respectively,  11.95  and  13.47  pounds  of 
roughage.     Special  attention  is  called  to  the  very  small  amounts  of 


Bu-  103.  Bureau  of  Ammal  Industry,  U    S.   Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  VI. 


:^-  ■.■^.    —  .- 


^>»>*1> 
1'?-; 


Fig.  1.— Grade  Red  Poll— First  Experiment. 


FiQ.  2. -Grade  Hereford    First  Experiment. 


BuL.  103,  Bureau  of  Ammal  Industry,  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  VII. 


Fig.  1.    Grade  Aberdeen-Angus  Steer— First  Experiment. 


Fig.  2.  -Grade  Aberdeen-Angus  Steer-Fihst  Experiment. 


BuL.  103.  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry.  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  VIII. 


Fig.  1.— Grade  Shorthorn— First  Experiment. 


1     -7- 

.  ^  1 

i^ 

Fig.  2.    Grade  Aherdeen-Angus -First  Experiment. 


BuL.  103,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  U.  S.   Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  IX. 


Fig.  1.— Pen  of  Scrubs— First  Experiment. 


Fig.  2. -Pen  of  Grades-First  Experimcnt. 


FEED  REQUIREMENTS  OF  CATTLE.  17 

concentrated  feed  (cotton-seed  meal)  required  to  make  1  pound  of 
gain.  When  corn  alone  is  fed  in  the  corn  belt  the  amount  required  is 
often  10  to  13  pounds  of  corn  for  each  pound  gain  in  live  weight.  In 
this  experiment  pen  2  required  only  about  one-third  the  usual  amount 
of  concentrate  to  produce  a  pound  of  increase  in  live  weight,  which 
emphasizes  the  relatively  high  fattening  value  of  cotton-seed  meal. 

Corn  storer  versus  cotton-seed  hulls  {pens  J  and  4)- — When  corn 
stover  was  fed  ad  libitum  together  with  a  limited  amount  of  cotton- 
seed meal  it  required  5.78  pounds  of  concentrate  for  1  pound  of  gain, 
as  compared  with  3.66  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal  when  fed  in  con- 
nection with  hulls.  In  the  same  rations  it  required  for  1  pound  of 
growth  18.47  pounds  of  shredded  corn  stover  as  compared  with  only 
13.47  pounds  of  cotton-seed  hulls.  In  other  words,  it  required  59 
per  cent  more  of  cotton-seed  meal  to  make  1  pound  of  gain  when  fed 
with  stover  than  when  fed  with  hulls.  Moreover,  to  make  1  pound 
of  gain  there  was  required  37  per  cent  more  stover  than  hulls. 

Cut  sorghum  versns  shredded  corn  storer  {pens  4  ff^d  o). — Com- 
paring the  amounts  of  these  two  feeds  to  make  a  pound  of  gain,  there 
was  required  only  11.95  pounds  of  sorghum  as  compared  with  18.47 
pounds  of  stover,  or  54  per  cent  more  of  stover.  To  produce  the 
same  effect  required  only  4.23  pounds  of  cotton -seed  meal  when  fed 
with  sorghum  as  compared  with  5.78  pounds  of  cotton-seed  meal 
when  fed  with  stover,  or  37  per  cent  more  concentrate  in  the  stover 
ration. 

Cotton-seed  meal  versus  com-and-coh  mctti  us  the  princip<d  con- 
centrate (pens  8  and  10). — Taking  the  average  figure  for  the  three 
experiments,  the  amount  of  concentrate  required  to  produce  a  pound 
of  gain  in  a  ration  consisting  chiefly  of  cotton  seed  was  4.39  pounds 
as  compared  with  4.29  pounds  of  concentrate  in  a  ration  consisting 
chiefly  of  corn-and-cob  meal.  AVith  the  corn  there  was  a  slightly 
le.ss  roughage  (mixed  hay)  required.  However,  these  differences 
were  both  less  than  2.5  per  cent,  so  that  we  may  properly  interi)ret 
these  results  as  showing  practical  equality  in  the  nutritive  effect  of 
cotton-seed  and  corn-and-ccb  meal,  pound   per  pound. 

Cotton-seed  meal  versus  com-and-coh  meal  ax  a  suppl€m£ntarif 
feed  With  cotton  seed  {pens  8  and  0). — When  only  one-third  of  the 
ration  consisted  of  cotton-seed  meal  or  corn-and-cob  meal,  used  to 
make  cotton  seed  more  palatable,  there  were  required  17  per  cent 
mor<'  concentrate  and  10  per  cent  uiore  roughage  to  uiake  1  pouud 
gain  in  the  ration  containing  corn-and-cob  meal.  In  other  words, 
cotton-seed  meal  was  slightly  more  efficient  than  corn-and-cob  meal 
when  used  as  a  supplementary  concentrate  or  aj)petizer. 

Effect  of  suhxtitutiny  lorn-aiid-ad,  nir<d  for  one-third  of  the 
cotton -seed  meal  when  fed  with   (a)   hulls  or  {l>)  <<>rii  .storer  {pens  J 


18 


EXPERIMENTS    IN    BEEF    PRODUCTION    IN    ALABAMA. 


(iiul  y,  and  4  <if^'l  ')• — (^0  When  hulls  constituted  the  rougha<i:e  the 
substitution  of  corn  for  one-third  of  the  cotton-seed  meal  slightly 
increased  the  amount  of  concentrate  required  per  pound  of  gain 
(3.00  pounds  to  3.90  pounds)  and  slightly  reduced  the  amount  of 
hulls  required  per  pound  of  gain  (from  13.47  pounds  to  11.91 
pounds).  This  shows  that  the  substitution  of  corn  and  the  con- 
sequent Avidening  of  the  nutritive  ratio  effected  practically  no  economy 
in  the  feed  required. 

(0)  When  a  similar  substitution  was  made  in  a  ration  in  which  the 
roughage  was  shredded  corn  stover,  this  substitution  of  corn-and-cob 
meal  for  an  equal  weight  of  cotton-seed  meal  gave  contradictory 
results  in  the  diiTerent  experiments. 

Effect  of  slieJtcr  {penx  2  and  6). — In  two  ex})eriments  out  of  three 
and  in  the  average  for  three  years,  shelter  resulted  in  a  slight  economy 
in  use  of  concentrated  feed  and  a  slight  loss  in  the  use  of  roughage. 
In  other  words,  shelter  on  the  whole  saved  0.2  of  a  pound  of  cotton- 
seed meal  per  pound  gain  and  lost  0.49  of  a  pound  of  roughage.  The 
steers  out  of  doors  consumed  a  larger  ration  of  roughage. 

SfTuhn  verfiux  gradex  {pcn,s  1  and  2). — The  averages  agree  with 
each  of  the  three  experiments  in  showing  that  the  scrubs  required 
slightly  less  concentrate  and  roughage  to  make  1  pound  of  gain  than 
did  the  grades.  These  results  are  chiefly  due  to  the  fact  that  in  the 
first  year's  experiments  the  scrubs  were  thinner  than  the  grades.  In 
the  other  two  years  there  was  practically  no  difference  in  condition 
at  the  beginning  of  the  experiment  and  very  little  in  economy  of 
feed. 

Tablk  .3. — Feed  required  to  make  1  pound  of  gain. 


Ration. 

•    - 

1904-5 

1905-6 

Pounds  of  food 

Pounds  of  food 

No.  of 

Aver- 

required per 

Aver- 

required per 

age 

pound  of  gain. 

age 

pound  of  gain. 

Concentrate. 

Roughage. 

daily 
gain 
per 

daily 
gain 
per 

Con- 

Rough- 

Con- 

Rougli- 

steer. 

trate. 

age. 

steer. 

trate. 

agc. 

1 

Cotton-seed  meal 

Cotton-seed  hulls 

2.20 

1.90 

8.36 

1.55 

3.92 

10. .57 

2 

do 

do 

1.88 

2.7.T 

9.75 

1.51 

4.16 

14.27 

3 

§   cotton-seed  meal, 
J     com  -  and  -  cob 
meal. 

do 

l.!« 

3.06 

9..')2 

1.87 

3.89 

10.94 

4 

Cotton-seeil  meal 

Shredded      corn 
stover. 

1.84 

2.78 

9.r)9 

1.15 

5.47 

14.82 

5 

do 

Out  sorghum. 

1.89 

2.70 

8.64 

1.12 

5.. 53 

13.00 

6 

do 

Ootton-seed  hulls 

1.62 

3.14 

11.4.') 

1.29 

4.84 

13.8<> 

7 

§    cotton-seed  meal, 
J     corn  -  and  -  cob 

Shredded      corn 
stover. 

1.77 

3.. 33 

8.f« 

1.29 

5.63 

12. 8t 

meal. 

8 

s  cotton  seed,  J  cot- 
ton-seed meal. 

1  sorghum,   J     pea 
hay. 

l.&> 

3.69         8..V2 

2.00 

3.86 

7.91 

9 

§     cotton     seed,     J 
corn-and-cob  meal. 

do 

2.10 

3.37          7. .37 

1.48 

5.19 

9.40 

corn-and-cob  meal. 

do 

2.10 

3.37         7.92 

1.70 

4.51 

9. 20 

J  cotton-seed  meal. 

1 

FINANCIAL    STATEMENT.  19 

Table  3. — Feed  required  to  muhe  1  ixiund  of  yain — ContimuHl. 


Ration. 


Xo.  of 
pen. 


Concentrate. 


Cotton-seed  meal. 
do- 


Roughage 


g  cotton-seed  meal, 
J  corn  -  and  -  cob 
meal. 

Cotton-seed  meal 

'.V".AoVS.'.V.'.".'.'..V\ 

8  cotton-seed  meal,  \ 
J  corn  -  and  -  cob  j 
meal.  | 

g  cotton  seed,  J  cot- 
ton-seed meal. 

8  cotton  seed,  J  ' 
corn-r.nd-oob  meal.  | 

Jcorn-and-cob  meal, 
i  cotton-seed  meal. 


Cotton-seed  hulls 

do 

do 


Shredded 

stover. 
Cut  sorghum 
Ootton-seetl  hulls. .. 
Shredded      corn 

stover. 

i  sorghum,  J 

hay. 
do 


FINANCIAL  STATEMENT. 

Table  4  shows  the  average,  for  three  years,  of  the  weights  of  the 
steers  at  the  beginning  and  end  of  ^he  experiment  proper,  the  shrink- 
age in  shipment,  the  average  selling  price  in  New  Orleans,  the  aver- 
age shipping  and  selling  expenses  per  steer,  the  total  cost  of  feed  at 
high  and  at  low  prices  (see  p.  13).  and  the  gain  or  loss  per  steer 
(exclusive  of  manure)  calculated  for  both  high  and  low  prices  of  fee<i 

Tablk  4. —  Weiyhtx,  ahriitknye,  and  financial  stat<inent  {anra;/e  for  tliree  i/eims). 


,  Average  '  .\verage 
weight    I    weight 

'^n      Htlx^in-     at.Vu- 
*^      j  ning  of     l)um  at 
1  expert-    end  of  ex- 
I    ment.    'pcriment. 


^ 

--' 

Pound*. 

I'oundn. 

(v54 

795 

734 

»« 

rxi 

K78 

708 

SOS 

(»« 

S15 

714 

S37 

two 

799 

700 

841 

<i8K 

81)> 

722 

m; 

Shrink- 
age per 
steer  in 

Selling 
price  jxT 
hundred- 
weight 

Sh 
ex 

pping 
M'lises 

Total 
cost  of 
feed  pt>r 
stivr  at 

Total  cost 

of  fet>d  per 

stiHT  at 

Loss  i>er 

steiT  at 

high  price 

Profit  (-H) 
or  loss  (-) 
[HT  steer  at 

shipping. 

lit  New 
Orleans. 

IR'I 

high  price 
of  f(<<'d. 

of  feed. 

of  feed. 

of  fwd. 

Pound* . 

'.»2 

$4.(1.5 

y\.  27 

$10.(12 

$7.  4;! 

$1.78 

-I-$1.42 

82 

4.42 

X  27 

11.. Tf. 

~.'M'> 

2.  ().■> 

+   1..14 

.S«l 

4.  :\-l 

;{.  27 

11.80 

8.n4 

2.  9.1 

+•     ..W 

i^.^ 

4.11 

X  27 

s.  49 

7.  ."l«i 

2.  4(> 

-    1.47 

i'>7 

4.18 

:!.  27 

10.  01 

9. 09 

2. 92 

-  2.00 

7.'? 

4.  29 

X  27 

11. 02 

7.81 

.1.14 

-H     .07 

*r9 

.1  97 

X  -27 

8. 9,1 

7.87 

4.10 

-  ;i.07 

74 

4.19 

X  27 

10.  (il 

9.  41 

2.  77 

-   1..W 

72 

4.12 

X  27 

10.  (».5 

8.  (12 

.1. :« 

-    1.90 

82 

4.  2.S 

.127 

12.  (14 

10.  ."iO 

.1.  IW 

-  2.  13 

20       EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  ALABAMA. 

/Shnnkage. — The  shrinkage  in  shipping  to  market  in  New  Orleans 
was  in  all  three  experiments  larger  than  it  would  have  been  under 
normal  conditions.  In  the  absence  of  facilities  for  loading  cattle 
at  Auburn  the  steers  at  the  end  of  the  first  experiment  had  to  be 
driven  7  miles  l)efore  being  loaded.  Tn  the  second  and  third  experi- 
ments there  were  unusual  delays  in  transportation;  in  one  case  the 
steers  were  on  the  road  forty-two  hours  between  Auburn  and  New 
Orleans  (a  distance  of  880  miles),  because  of  delayed  trains  and  u 
strike  of  railroad  switchmen  in  'New  Orleans.  If  the  steers  had 
reached  their  destination  on  schedule  time,  which  is  about  nineteen 
hours  after  leaving  Auburn,  the  shrinkage  would  undoubtedly  have 
been  less  and  the  financial  results  more  favorable.  To  prepare  the 
steers  for  shipment,  they  were  all  put  on  a  ration  consisting  chiefly 
of  hay  for  one  day  before  leaving  Auburn. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  cotton  seed,  although  a  very  laxative 
food,  did  not  increase  the  amount  of  shrinkage  of  pens  8  and  9  as 
compared  with  other  feeds.  The  steers  fed  on  corn  stover  (pens  4 
and  7)  shrunk  least. 

Average  selling  price  in  New  Orleans. — Taking  the  average  selling 
price  in  New  Orleans  for  the  three  experiments.  Ave  find  that  the 
highest  average  return  was  $4.42  per  hundredweight,  for  pen  2,  con- 
sisting of  grade  steers  fed  exclusively  on  cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls. 
The  next  highest  price,  $4.32,  was  obtained  for  pen  3,  in  which  (;orn- 
and-cob  meal  was  substituted  for  a  part  of  the  cotton-seed  meal.  The 
third  highest  price,  $4.29  per  hundredweight,  was  paid  for  pen  6, 
fed  without  shelter  on  cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls.  This  is  a  reduc- 
tion in  price  of  13  cents  per  hundredweight  as  the  apparent  loss  from 
feeding  in  the  open.  This  was  due  to  the  steers  without  shelter  hav- 
ing a  rougher,  duller  coat. 

The  steers  getting  corn-and-cob  meal  {pen  10)  as  the  principal 
concentrate  sold  a  little  higher  than  those  fed  on  cotton  seed,  but  not 
as  high  as  those  fed  on  cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls.  The  steers  from 
pens  4  and  7,  getting  corn  stover  as  roughage,  sold  lower  than  any 
of  the  other  grades,  not  being  so  fat.  Pen  5,  getting  sorghum  as 
roughage,  sold  better  than  the  stover  pens  and  about  the  same  as  the 
pens  getting  cotton  seed  and  hay,  but  not  so  well  as  the  others. 

The  scrubs  (pen  1)  sold  for  about  two-thirds  of  a  cent  less  per 
pound  than  grades  getting  the  same  ration,  and  sold  lower  than  any 
others  except  pen  7,  fed  stover  for  roughage.  They  were  probably 
a  little  fatter  than  most  of  the  grades  because  they  were  older  and 
had  fattened  during  the  experiment  instead  of  growing,  as  some  of 
the  younger  grades  had  done. 


Buu  103,  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  X. 


Fig.  1.— Pen  of  Scrubs— Second  Experiment. 


Fig.  2.    Pen  of  Grades-First  Experiment. 


BuL.  103    Bureau  OF  Ammal  Ir^DUSTRY    U.  S.   Dept.  of  Agriculture. 


Plate  XI 


Fig    1.— Pen  of  Grades— First  Experiment. 


Fig.  2.— Pen  of  Grades    Second  Experiment. 


INFLUENCE    OF    RATIONS    FED.  21 

Pro-fit  or  loss  per  steer. — Taking  no  account  of  the  value  of  the 
manure  and  no  account  of  the  gains  made  by  the  hogs  that  followed 
the  steers  the  first  winter,  we  find  that  with  cotton-seed  meal  at  $-24 
per  ton,  hulls  at  $7  per  ton,  and  corn  at  70  cents  per  bushel,  there  was 
in  every  combination  of  these  and  other  feeds  a  financial  loss.  This 
simply  shows  that  such  prices  are  too  high  to  permit  profitable  feed- 
ing in  such  rations  as  those  used,  unless  the  margin  between  the  buy- 
ing and  selling  price  of  steers  should  be  wider  than  it  was  in  these 
experiments,  namely,  from  about  one-fourth  to  about  three-fourths  of 
a  cent  per  pound.     (See  Table  6.) 

A  somewhat  better  financial  showing  is  made  when  we  figure  with 
the  more  reasonable  prices  for  the  purchased  feeds  and  the  same 
prices  as  before  for  the  home-grown  stover,  sorghum,  and  cowpea 
hay  (p.  22).  On  this  basis  a  small  profit  was  made  on  all  the  steers 
that  received  cotton-seed  hulls.  On  all  other  pens  there  was  still  a 
financial  loss,  chiefly  due  to  the  relatively  high  price  which  we  have 
assumed  for  sorghum  and  cowpea  hav  in  the  absence  of  any  data 
showing  the  exact  cost  of  producing  this  roughage. 

On  the  basis  of  prices  just  assumed,  the  greatest  profit,  $1.42  per 
steer,  was  made  by  the  scrubs,  because  they  were  bought  at  a  lower 
price  per  pound,  thus  giving  a  larger  margin  (77  cents  per  hundred- 
weight), as  shown  in  Table  0. 

Comparing  the  financial  results  for  the  nine  ])ens  of  gi-ades,  we  find 
that  the  only  three  showing  a  profit  rank  as  follows: 

1.  Pen  2,  fed  on  cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls. 

2.  Pen  8,  fed  on  two-thirds  cotton-seed  meal  and  one-third  corn- 
and-cob  meal  and  hulls. 

3.  Pen  0,  fed  or  cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls  (without  shelter). 
The  feeding  of  hulls  was  more  profitable  than  feeding  stover  at 

the  same  price  (pens  2  and  4,  and  3  and  7).  Cotton  seed  was  a  more 
economical  ration  than  corn  (pens  8  and  10). 

Cotton-s^ed  meal  was  more  economical  than  corn-and-cob  meal  as 
a  supplementary  feed  with  cotton  seed.  It  was  slightly  more  profit- 
able to  feed  cotton-seed  meal  as  the  sole  concent late  than  to  substitute 
for  one-third  of  the  cotton-seed  meal  an  ecjtial  weight  of  corn-and-cob 
meal.  This  was  true  whether  the  roughage  consisted  of  hulls  or  corn 
stover. 

Returns  receiiH'd  for  ronfjJuuje  fed. — Table  .'>  siiows  the  actual 
value  in  l)eef  received  as  the  return  olUained  from  feeding  1  ton  of 
the  several  kinds  of  roughage.  This  is  based  u|)on  the  diflei-ence  be- 
tween the  selling  price  of  the  steers  and  the  pui'chas(>  price  plus  the 
cost  of  the  concentrate  fed  to  each  jhmi.    Tiie  figures  given  in  tlie  fii*st 


22 


EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  ALABAMA. 


two  columns  are  based  upon  prices  of  $20  a  ton  for  cotton-seed  meal, 
$12  a  ton  for  cotton  seed,  and  50  cents  a  bushel  for  corn. 

This  table  shows  that  on  this  basis  the  average  financial  return  per 
ton  of  roughage,  excluding  the  value  of  the  manure,  was  as  follows: 

Cotton-seed  hulls,  $4.64  to  $5.82  per  ton. 

Cut  sorghum  fodder  alone,  $3.G8  per  ton. 

Mixed  sorghum  and  cowpea  hay,  $5.18  to  $5.92  per  ton. 

Corn  stover  when  fed  with  cotton-seed  meal  alone  returned  only 
$1.98  per  ton. 

These  figures  suggest  that  under  conditions  prevailing  in  this  ex- 
periment, and  with  cotton-seed  meal  at  $20  a  ton  a  farmer  could  afford 
to  give  $4.64  to  $5.82  a  ton  for  hulls  and  have  manure  to  offset  labor 
of  feeding,  interest  on  investment,  and  profit.  A  quarter  of  a  cent 
margin  in  addition  to  what  was  received  would  enable  one  to  pay  a 
considerably  higher  price  for  feed  or  greatly  to  increase  the  profit  of 
feeding. 

Table  5. — Actual  value  of  roughage  for  feeding  (average  for  three  years). 


No. 
of 

1)011. 


Ration. 


Concontrato. 


Roughagiv 


Cott on-socd  meal 

do 

g  cotton-seed  meal,  J 

corn-and-col)  meal. 

Cotton-seed  meal 

.do. 
.do. 


cotton-seed  meal,  J 
com-and-cob  meal, 
cotton  seed,  J  cot- 
ton-seed meal, 
cotton  seed,  J  corn- 
and-col)  meal, 
corn-and-cob  meal, 
J  cotton-seed  meal. 


Cotton-seed  hulls 

do 

do 

Shredded  corn 
stover. 

Cut  sorghum 

Cotton-seed  hulls 

Shredded  corn 
stover. 

i  pea  hay,  J  sor- 
ghum. 

do 

do 


u> 

ft3 

p.^ 

0-" 

So 

2:1 

II 

•SI. 

—  ■o 

O-O- 

a 

■^^H 

Sa& 

O* 

r.^< 

o 

O 

CO 

$103.32 

$2.50 

$3.27 

133.50 

3.00 

3.74 

135.91 

3.00 

3.63 

129.41 

3.00 

3.49 

127.86 

3.00 

3.54 

1.30.47 

3.00 

3.62 

128.74 

3.00 

3.28 

124.83 

3.00 

3.54 

120.21 

3.00 

3.46 

132.64 

3.00 

3.57 

$125.97 
1.56.61 
154.83 

136.67 

140.13 
146.92 
127.28 

144.20 

136.80 

150.17 


1  «t-l 

, 

03  O 

a-^ 

> 

sg  . 

?•« 

^~V 

O  c 

c  i^a 

3 

o    ; 

-     £, 

D.    1 

c-".a 

^■g     ' 

C'  e  -^ 

Sl2 

■Si 

« 

«    1 

$22.65 

7,778 

23.11 

8,200 

18.92 

8,145 

7.26 

7,314 

12.27 

6,679 

16.45 

7,855 

-1.46 

6,958 

19.37 

6,538 

16.59 

6,261 

17.53 

6,763 

1 

$5.82 
5.64 
4.64 


3.68 
4.19 
-   .42 

5.!r2 

5.30 

5. IS 


n  In  calculating  the  selling  price  at  Auburn  the  actual  shrinkage,  which  was  abnor- 
mally high  in  this  experiment  (see  Table  4),  is  disregarded  and  the  customary  local  :> 
per  cent  deduction  substituted  therefor.  The  third  column  of  figures  was  obtained  as 
follows  :  :>  per  cent  for  shrinkage  was  deducted  from  the  sum  of  the  final  weights  at 
.\uburn.  This  shrunk  weight  was  then  divided  into  the  total  amount  received  in 
three  years  for  the  separate  pens  of  steers  in  New  Orleans,  after  deducting  from  the 
gross  sales  the  expense  of  shipping  and  selling,  namely,  $.'5.27  per  steer. 

Margin  received  and  margin  necessary  for  profit. — In  Table  6  are 
presented  average  financial  results  for  three  years,  each  figure 
being  the  average  for  15  steers.  All  these  figures,  except  those  in 
line  8,  are  on  the  basis  of  net  prices  in  the  feed  lot  at  the  close  of 
ihe  experiment. 


MARKET    VALUE    OF    CATTLE. 


23 


Table  6. — Market  values  at  close  of  crperiment  and  margin  of  profit  for  each 
lot    {average  for   three   i/ears). 


Classification  of  values. 


Penl.   Pen  2. 


Market  value  of  steers  per  ' 

hundredweight  in  feed  lot".'  $3.27     $.3.74 
What  each  would  have  to  1 

sell  for  per  hundredweight  | 

in  feed  lot  to  come  out  even.     3. 04       3.  57 
Margin  l)etween  buying  price 

andsellingpriceinNewOr-  j 

leans '    1.55       1.42 

Margin   necessary    l)etween  I 

buying  and  selling  price  in 

feed  lot  to  come  out  even. .       .54        .  57  | 
Margin  per  hundredweight 

actually  received   in  feecf  |  '. 

lot 77        .74 

Net  profit  (+)  or  loss  (— ) 

persteer +1.42   +1.34   + 


Pen  3.    Pen  4. 


Pen  5. ,  Pen  6. 1  Pen  7.   Pen  8.   Pen  9.    Pen  10. 


$.3.(53     $3.49     $3..>4     $3.  tV2     $.3.2S     $.3.54     $3. 4t> 


1.32        1.11   :     1.18  I     1.29 


.49 
-1.47 


2.  no'  +   .07    -3.07 


3.69 
1.19 
.69 


3.  69 
1.12 
.69 


$:<.57 

.3. 8.3 
1.25 

.Ki 


.54         .46 
-l..'.H  i-1.90 


Pen  1   (scrubs t  fed  cotton-seed  meal  and  liulls. 

F'en  2  fed  cotton-seed  meal  and  cotton-see<l   hulls. 

Pen  .3  fed  two-thlrd.s  cotton-seed   meal,  one-third  corn-nnd-coh  meal   and   hulls. 

Pen  4  fed  cotton-seed  meal  and  corn  stover. 

Pen  .5  fed  cotton-see<l  meal  and  cut   sorghum. 

Pen  6  fed   cotton-seed   meal   and  hulls   (no  shelter). 

Pen  7  fed  two-thirds  cotton-seed  meal,  one-third  corn-and-cob  meal  and   stover. 

Pen  8  fed  two  thirds  cotton-seed,  one-third  cotton-seed  meal,  and  one-half  cowpea  hay 
and  one-half  cut  sorghum. 

Pen  9  fed  two-thirds  cotton  seed,  one-third  corn-and-cob  meal,  one-half  cowpea  hay, 
and   one-half   cut    sorghum. 

Pen  10  fed  two  thirds  corn-and-cob  meal,  one-third  cottonseed  meal,  and  one  half 
hay    and    one-half   cut   sorghum. 

"After  making  allowance  for  (1)  shipping  and  selling  expenses  on  basis  of  full  cars 
of  ."?.■{  head  per  car;  (2»  shrinkage  in  shipping,  and  (."?)  a  ."{  per  cent  shrinkage  usually 
deducted  by  local  buyers. 

The  first  line  show.s  the  actual  market  value  of  tlie  steers  in  the 
feed  lot  at  Auburn  at  the  end  of  the  experiment,  and  ^hows  the  not 
j)rices  at  Auburn  after  deducting  ship]nn<r  expenses,  etc..  and  after 
making  allowance  for  a  8  per  cent  shrinkage. 

The  second  line  shows  the  price  at  which  it  would  liave  been  ncc- 
es-sar}"  to  sell  the  steers  in  the  feed  lots  to  come  out  even. 

The  third  line  shows  the  margin  received  on  the  basis  of  prices 
in  Xew  Orleans. 

The  fourth  line  teaches  the  important  lesson  of  how  wide  a  margin 
is  nece.s.saiT  under  these  conditions  between  the  buying  and  >elliiig 
prices  of  steers  in  the  feed  lot.  It  indicates  that  in  general  terms 
a  margin  of  'A  to  88  cents  per  Inuidredweight  in  the  feed  lot  i<  nec- 
essary to  come  out  even,  and  that  a  still  wider  margin  would  be 
needed  to  afford  any  diivct  luofit.  In  case  the  margin  is  calculated 
on  the  difference  between  the  buying  j)rice  of  steers  at  the  beginning 
of  the  experiment  and  the  celling  pi'ice  after  shipment,  tbe  margins 
indicated  above  would  liaxc  to  be  increased  by  :iii  anioiinl  large 
enough  to  co\er  expenses  of  shipment  and  sale.  In  these  experiments 
the  expense  of  ship|)ing  from  .Vulairn  to  .New  Orleans  and  selling 
amounted  to  a   little  less  than   half  a  cent   a   pound,  in  addition  to 


24       EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  ALABAMA. 

shrinkag:e.  Hence,  on  the  basis  of  selling  prices  in  New  Orleans  the 
margin  necessary  for  our  feeding  operations  to  have  come  out  even 
would  have  been  the  margin  indicated  in  line  4,  plus  nearly  50  cents 
plus  difference  in  shrinkage,  or  a  total  of  from  $1.25  to  $1.51  per 
hundred  pounds.  To  afford  any  material  profit  at  the  prices  here  as- 
sumed, or  in  case  of  very  heavy  shinkage.  the  feeder  should  receive 
more  than  these  latter  figures. 

I^ine  5  shows  the  margin  actually  received  between  the  value  of 
the  steers  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  end  of  the  experiment,  both 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  prices  in  the  feed  lot  at  Auburn.  In  most 
cases  this  was  too  small    for  profitable  feeding. 

Line  0  shows  the  net  profit  or  loss  per  steer,  which  has  been 
previously  commented  on. 

DAILY  RATIONS  AND  DRY   MATTER  REQUIRED   FOR   100  POUNDS 

OF  GAIN. 

In  Table  7  are  shown  the  average  amount  of  roughage  and  ccm- 
centrate  fed  per  steer  daily  for  the  three-year  period.  It  also  shows 
the  rations  on  the  basis  of  dry  matter  required  to  make  100  pounds  of 
gain.  The  amount  of  roughage  in  the  daily  ration  was  largest  when 
hulls  were  fed,  and  least  when  mixed  hay  was  fed. 

The  least  amount  of  concentrate  was  consumed  when  cotton-seed 
meal  was  used  alone,  usually  from  5.1  to  5.6  pounds  per  day.  When 
corn-and-cob  meal  was  added  to  the  cotton-seed  meal,  the  amount  of 
concentrate  consumed  was  about  1  pound  per  clay  greater.  When 
cotton  seed  or  corn-and-cob  m^al  constituted  the  principal  concen- 
trate, the  daily  consumption  of  concentrated  feed  was  increased  to 
7.2  pounds. 

In  dry  matter  consumed  per  100  pounds  of  gain,  cotton-seed  meal 
alone  and  a  mixture  of  cotton-seed  meal  and  corn-and-cob  meal  were 
practically  identical  when  fed  with  hulls,  but  the  niixture  was  the 
more  effective  wdien  fed  with  stover.  With  cotton  seed  the  addition 
of  cotton-seed  meal  as  a  supplement  was  slightly  more  effective  than 
an  equal  weight  of  corn-and-cob  meal.  Corn-and-cob  meal  and  cotton 
seed  were  practically  ecjually  effective  as  the  principal  concentrate. 


NUTRITIVE    RATIO    OF    RATIONS    FED.  25 

Tablk  7.— Daily  ratinns  and  dry  matter  per  huiidrcdirciijlit  of  f/nin. 


No.  of 
pen. 

Daily 

gain  per 

steer. 

1 
2 

3 

Pounds. 
1.68 
l.rw 
1.6!) 

4 

1.1!) 

5 
6 

7 

1.39 
1.(7 
1 .32 

8 

1.68 

9 

1..J2 

10 

1.71 

Concentrate  per  lix) 
pounds  ifain. 


Pounds. 

328,  cotton-seed  meal 

366,  cotton-seed  meal 

3!)6,  §  cotton-seed  meal, 

i  corn-and-cob  meal. 
578,  cotton-seed  meal 

423,  cotton-seed  meal 

386,  cotton-seed  meal 

532,  g  cotton-seed  meal, 

J  corn-and-cob  meal. 
439,    g    cotton    seed,    J 

cotton-seed  meal. 
512,    §    cotton    seed,    J 

corn-and-cob  meal. 
42!), g  corn-and-cob  meal, 

J  cotton-seed  meal. 


Roughage     |)cr     liV) 
pounds  gain. 


Pounds. 
1,166,  cotton-seed  hulls 
1,347,  cotton-see<l  hulls 
1,191,  cotton-see<l  hulls 


Dry 

matter 
per  100 
pounds 
gain. 


Pounds. 
1,337.7 
1,533..-) 
1,413.2 


corn       2,110.2 


1,847,      shredde«l 

stover. 

1.195,  cut  sorghum 1,3!):?. 3 

1.2!)8,  eotton-.set>d  hulls  ..     1,.".08.3 
1,380.      shredded      corn 

stover. 
980.    I.    cowiica    hay.    \ 

sorghum. 
1.077,  J  cowpea   hay.    J 

sorghum . 
9()6,    I    cowpea    hay.     \ 

sorghum . 


1,6.'m.1 
1,244.8 
1,373.9 
1,210.8 


-Vverage  daily 
ration. 

Conceii-    Rough- 
trate.         age. 


Pounds. 
5.1 
5.6 


Pounds. 
18.:. 
19.:. 

19.4 

17.4 

15.9 
21 .3 
Pi.li 

15.6 

14.9 

10. 1 


Analyses-  of  all  feeds,  except  sorghum  and  shredded  corn  stover,  taken  from  Henry's 
••  Feeds  and  P^eeding."  Analyses  of  sorghum  fodder  and  corn  stover  made  by  ('.  L. 
Hare,  of  the  Alabama   Experiment    Station. 

THE  NUTRITIVE  RATIO. 

The  nutritive  ratio  is  the  proportion  l)otween  the  diijestible  protein 
(or  nitrogenous  material)  and  digestibh'  carbohydrates  to  which  is 
added  a  sum  equal  to  2.25  times  the  digestible  fat.  It  has  been  held 
that  a  nutritive  ratio  of  about  1  to  G  is  especially  favorable  to  the  fat- 
tening of  cattle.  A  ration  consisting  exclusively  of  cotton-seed  uieal 
and  cotton-seed  hulls  usually  contains  a  larger  proportion  of  nitrogen, 
and  hence  has  a  narrower  nutritive  ratio  than  indicated  above.  Aj)- 
parently  the  nutritive  ratio  was  not  a  controlling  factor  in  the  raj)id- 
ity  of  fattening. 

TAni.K  S.—.V  »/)•;// IT  ratio  of  rulioiis  frd. 


No.  of  pen. 


1904-5 

1905-6 

1:5.4 
1:4.6 
1:6.3 
1:4.8 
1:4.2 

1:3.8 
1:4.1 
1:5.8 
1:4.1 
1:3.5 

1906- 


.Vo.  of  pen. 


1:6.1 
1:4.8 
1:4.2 


j    1904   5 

1905   « 

1906-7 

1:4.7 

1:3.!) 

1:4.8 

1:4.5 
1:6.7 

1:  1.4 

l:'i.s 

1:  4.5 
1 :  <i.7 

1       1:5.2 

1 : 5. 1 

Notes. — Ether  extract  inultiplied  by  2.25  to  get  its  eciuivah-nt  in  <:irl)<>hydrales. 

Analyses  and  dlgestildlity  of  all  feeds  oxci'pt  sorgluiiu  and  stover  taken  Irom  Henry's 
"Feeds  and  Feeding."  .Vn'alyses  of  sor^lmm  fodder  and  shreddeil  stov>-r  made  hy  ('.  I,. 
Hare,  of  the  Alabama  Experiment  Station. 

Digestion  coefficients  of  corn  stover  taken  from  lleiiry's  tables,  and  for  soryhuiii  from 
•  'olorado  Experiment  Station  Itulletin  !).''.. 

.\rrnif)f   niiiili/mH   nf   Mturir  and   s<,i-(iliuiii    fur   llii     iirors    r.iii.'i  <.'   mid    r.xKl   '    tHiint. 


Dry 
mutter. 


Nitro 
Proleids.     geil  fnx' 
extract. 


Cruile    !     Kther 
liber.      I  extract. 


Stover 

Norghuin. 


Per  rent .   Percent.   Pern'ut.   Per  rent  .\  Per  tent . 
K<.:,1  1.19  i;;.K>*  3i.rLt  '  i.tii) 

s:t.!«  1.73  H)..".ii  :t2.:«i  '  l.m 


26       EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  IN  ALABAMA. 

Dil/tstion   coefficients  of  sorghum   and  stover. 


Stover  (Henry) 

Sorghum  (Colo.  Station  Bui.  m). 


Dry 
matter. 


Per  cent. 
57.00 
58.46 


Nitro- 

Proteids.    gen-free 

extract. 


Per  cent. 
40.00 
43.01 


Per  cent. 
ri6.oo 

61.00 


Ether 
extract. 


Per  cent. 
72.00 
64.  <X) 


Digestible  nutrients  in  corn  stover: 

4.  lOX    0.40=   1.68  per  cent   digestible   protein   in  stover. 


4;{.  f58X 

;<].  (53X 


50==l!4.  46  per  cent  digestible  nitrogen-free  e.xtriict. 
65=20.  56  per  cent  digestible  crude  liber. 


45.  02  per   cent   total   digestible   carboh.vdrates. 
1.60X      .72=   1.15  per  cent  digestible  fats. 
Dlgestilile  nutrients  in  sorghum  : 

4.73X43.01=  2.03  per  cent  digestible   protein    In  sorghum. 


40.56X61.00=24.74  per  cent  digestible  nitrogen-froc  extract. 

32.30X49.23=15.90  per  cent  digestible  liber. 

40.  64  per  cent  total  digestible  carbohydrates. 

2.03X64.90=   1.32  per  cent  digestible  fats. 


SLAUGHTER  TESTS. 


Through  the  courtesy  of  an  abattoir  company  of  New  Orleans  we 
were  enabled  to  make  slaughter  tests  of  the  steers  butchered  in  New 
Orleans.  A  few  of  the  steers  were  shipped  out  of  the  city  to  butchers 
in  other  places,  and  no  data  as  to  slaughter  tests  of  such  animals 
could  be  secured. 

Dressed  weight. — These  figures  are  on  the  basis  of  the  live  weight 
in  New  Orleans.  The  average  for  three  years  shows  that  the  scrubs 
dressed  only  54.5  per  cent  as  compared  wdth  an  average  of  57.2  per 
cent  for  the  grades  fed  on  the  same  ration.  This  means  that  in  every 
100  pounds  gross  weight  there  were  2.7  pounds  more  dressed  meat  in 
the  carcasses  of  the  grades  than  in  those  of  the  scrubs.  The  difference 
in  selling  price  in  New  Orleans  was  37  cents  per  hundredweight  live 
weight  in  favor  of  the  grades. 

The  table  shows  that  the  steers  fed  on  cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls 
dressed  higher  than  those  receiving  any  other  ration,  averaging  57.2 
per  cent.  Next  came  the  group  of  pens  receiving  hay  with  either 
corn  or  cotton  seed  as  the  principal  concentrate,  the  hay  pens  falling 
about  1  per  cent  behind  the  hull  pens.  The  pens  receiving  stover  or 
sorghum  made  the  poorest  showing,  falling  about  1  per  cent  behind 
the  hay  pens,  but  dressing  out  better  than  the  scrubs. 

Fdf  oil  intestines  and  many  flies. — Not  even  the  cotton-seed  rations 
influenced  very  markedly  the  proportion  of  gut  and  book  fat "  to  the 
live  weight,  the  percentage  of  this  kind  of  internal  fat  seeming  to 
depend  largely  on  the  individuality  of  the  steers. 

«  Book  fat  is  the  term  nsod  in  New  Orleans  abattoirs  for  the  fat  surrounding 
the  mauyplies,  or  third  stomach. 


SUMMARY    OF    RESULTS, 


27 


Table  9. — Percentage  of  dressed  iieifjhf,  fat.  hide,  hlood,  <t( ..  on  basis  of  Uic 

■weight  at  New  Orleans. 


Dressed 

weight. 

Gut  and  bock  fat 

.\ver- 
age  for 
thriv 
l)eri- 
ods. 

Peret. 

0.88 

First 
year. 

Peret. 

"8.0 
8.2 

"8.1 
8.1 
8.1 

"7  7 

Hide. 

Second 
year. 

Peret. 
"9.2 

7'.6 
"8.9 
"8.:? 
«7.4 

s~i 

"8.0 

No.  of 
pen. 

First    Second 
year,  i  year. 

Third 
year. 

Aver- 
age for 
three 
years. 

First 
year. 

Second 
year. 

Third 
year. 

Peret. 
"1.14 

Thini 
year. 

1 

Per  ct. 
".51.5 
"57.8 
"56.3 
53.3 
53.6 
»56.2 

Pertt. 
»54.5 
56.3 
57.2 
".56. 4 
655.5 
«55.8 
*52.1 

Peret. 

56.9 
.57.6 
58.3 
.56.6 
.56.3 
".59.3 
.59.1 
.57.4 
.57.8 
57.1 

Peret. 

54.5 
57.2 
57.3 
55.4. 
55.1 
57.2 

Peret. 
"0.38 
*2  2 

n'.\~ 

1.14 

1.85 

"l.r)4 

Peret. 
'•1.28 
1.18 
1.11 
"1.23 
"1.19 
"1.22 

Peret. 

o 

3 

4 

".a-, 

"1.0:5 

"i.:?o 
i.ix 

"1.19 
"1.13 
"1.10 

l.o:? 
1.42 
1.37 

"7.8 

"S.l 

fi 

"7.(5 
"8.:5 

8 

-.3(5.0 

";54.9 
".54.6 
«57.5 

"'ryG'.b>' 
.56.9 

"1.49 

"1.14 
"1.26 

"S.2 

9 

10 

1.26 
1.27 

"8.6 
"8.2 

"8.0 
"7.9 

Unmarke<l  nens  liave  an  average  of  5  steers. 
"Average  of  3  steers. 


''.Xvcratce  of  I  steers. 


SUMMARY. 

The  conclusions  «>fiven  bolow  arc  hiiscd  on  the  avcrairc  of  (he  throo 
experiments. 

1.  Witli  cotton-seed  meal  as  the  sole  concentx'ate  the  averaj^e  daily 
gains  were  as  follows:  With  cotton-seed  hulls,  l..").")  pounds;  with  cut 
sorghum  fodder,  1.-^9  pounds;  with  shredded  corn  stover,  1.10  pounds. 

2.  With  mixed  cowpea  and  sor<j:huin  hay  as  the  r()ii<i:ha<re,  and 
v.'ith  one-thii"d  of  the  concentrate  consist in<;  of  cotton-seed  meal,  the 
daily  gain  per  steer  from  fe«'ding  cotton  seed  was  l.OS  pounds,  and 
from  feeding  an  equal  weight  of  corn-and-coh  meal   1.71  pounds. 

3.  To  produce  1  j^ound  increase  in  live  weight  re(]uired  practically 
equal  amounts  of  cotton  seed  and  of  corn-and-coh  meal.  This  shows 
that  rmder  the  conditions  of  these  experiments  a  |)ound  of  cotton  seed 
was  equally  as  valuable  as  a  pound  of  coi'u-and-coi)  meal.  (\)tton 
seed  is  cheaper  per  ])ound,  and  hence  is  the  more  economical  feed. 

4.  Cotton-.seed  meal  proved  more  effective  and  economical  than 
<'orn-and-col>  meal  when  each  was  fed  as  an  appeti/er  in  coimection 
with  cotton  seed. 


28       EXPERIMENTS  IN  BEEF  PRODUCTION  TN  ALABAMA. 

5.  When,  in  a  ration  of  cotton-seed  meal,  one-third  of  the  weight 
of  the  cotton-seed  meal  was  substituted  by  an  equal  weight  of  corn- 
and-cob  meal,  the  daily  gains  were  slightly  increased.  The  amount 
of  concentrate  per  pound  of  gain  was  greater  with  the  mixed  ration, 
making  this  slightly  less  profitable  than  the  ration  containing  cotton- 
seed'meal  as  the  sole  concentrate. 

(').  The  efi'ect  of  shelter  varied  with  the  character  of  the  winter.  In 
two  tests  shelter  increased  the  daily  gains  and  decreased  the  amount 
of  feed  required  per  pound  of  gain.  In  the  third  experiment  the 
pen  fed  without  shelter  made  the  larger  gains  and  better  use  of  its 
feed.  The  average  of  three  years  is  in  favor  of  shelter.  The  selling 
price  in  all  three  experiments  was  higher  for  the  steers  fed  under 
shelter,  the  average  diiference  being  13  cents  per  hundredweight  in 
favor  of  the  sheltered  steers. 

7.  The  scrub  steers  in  two  experiments  made  practically  the  same 
daily  gains  at  practically  the  same  cost  as  the  grades.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  other  experiment  the  scrubs  were  thinner,  and  they 
gained  more  rapidly  and  economically, 

8.  Heavy  shrinkage  during  shipment,  due  to  unusual  delays, 
greatly  reduced  the  possible  profits. 

0.  The  average  selling  price  of  grades  in  Xew  Orleans  ranged  be- 
tween $3.97  (for  the  pen  fed  on  corn  stover,  cotton-seed  meal,  and 
corn-and-cob  meal)  and  $4.42  (for  the  pen  fed  on  cotton-seed  meal 
and  hulls). 

10.  Of  the  eight  rations  fed  the  following  were  the  most  profitable 
at  prices  assumed:  (1)  Cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls;  (2)  two-thirds 
cotton-seed  meal,  one-third  corn-and-cob  meal,  with  cotton-seed  hulls 
as  roughage.  With  cotton-seed  meal  at  $20  a  ton,  hulls  were  worth 
in  these  experiments  from  $4.G2  to  $5.82  per  ton.  Inferior  sorghum 
fodder  and  corn  stover  were  worth  less  than  hulls. 

11.  A  margin  ranging  between  0.54  and  0.83  of  a  cent  per  pound 
in  the  feed  lots  for  the  different  lots  would  have  made  the  feeding 
operations  come  out  even.  To  find  the  corresponding  nuirgin  be- 
tween purchase  price  and  selling  price  in  New  Orleans,  any  intend- 
ing shipper  can  add  an  amount  sufficient  to  cover  ex^eenses  of  ship- 
ping and  selling  and  shrinkage. 

12.  The  scrubs  dressed  out  54.3  per  cent  as  compared  with  57.2  per 
cent  for  grades  fed  on  a  similar  ration. 

13.  In  percentage  of  dressed  weight  the  best  showing  was  made 
by  the  steers  fed  on  cotton-seed  meal  and  hulls,  and  the  poorest 
by  those  fed  on  corn  stover  or  on  sorghum  fodder.  The  steers  re- 
ceiving mixed  hay  ranked  lowtr  in  percentage  of  dressed  weight 
than  those  fed  on  hulls  and  higher  than  those  fed  on  sorghum  or 
corn  stover. 


A     001  120  190     2 


